Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
29Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Silk Road Prosecution 4th Amendment Rebuttall

Silk Road Prosecution 4th Amendment Rebuttall

Ratings: (0)|Views: 336,549 |Likes:
Published by Andy Greenberg
As the trial of alleged Silk Road drug market creator Ross Ulbricht approaches, the defense has highlighted the mystery of how law enforcement first located the main Silk Road server in an Icelandic data center, despite that computer's being hidden by the formidable anonymity software Tor. Was the FBI tipped off to the server's location by the NSA, who used a secret and possibly illegal Tor-cracking technique?

The answer, according to a new filing by the case's prosecution, is far more mundane: The FBI claims to have found the server's location without the NSA's help, simply by fiddling with the Silk Road's login page until a software misconfiguration leaked its true location.
As the trial of alleged Silk Road drug market creator Ross Ulbricht approaches, the defense has highlighted the mystery of how law enforcement first located the main Silk Road server in an Icelandic data center, despite that computer's being hidden by the formidable anonymity software Tor. Was the FBI tipped off to the server's location by the NSA, who used a secret and possibly illegal Tor-cracking technique?

The answer, according to a new filing by the case's prosecution, is far more mundane: The FBI claims to have found the server's location without the NSA's help, simply by fiddling with the Silk Road's login page until a software misconfiguration leaked its true location.

More info:

Published by: Andy Greenberg on Sep 05, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v. - ROSS ULBRICHT, a/k/a
Dread Pirate Roberts,
 a/k/a
DPR,
 a/k/a
Silk Road,
 Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : : : : : : : : : : : : x S1 14 Cr. 68 (KBF)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, OBTAIN DISCOVERY AND A BILL OF PARTICULARS, AND STRIKE SURPLUSAGE
PREET BHARARA United States Attorney Southern District of New York One St. Andrew
s Plaza  New York, New York 10007 SERRIN TURNER TIMOTHY T. HOWARD Assistant United States Attorneys
Of Counsel
Case 1:14-cr-00068-KBF Document 56 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 58
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 3
 
A.
 
Searches of Silk Road Servers ............................................................................................. 3
 
B.
 
Pen Registers and Search Warrants Relating to Ulbricht .................................................... 5
 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7
 
POINT I: ALL OF ULBRICHT’S SUPPRESSION ARGUMENTS ARE MERITLESS
AND SHOULD BE DENIED ......................................................................................................... 7
 
A.
 
The FBI Lawfully Located the Silk Road Server ................................................................ 7
 
B.
 
A Warrant Was Not Required for the Search of the Silk Road Server ................................ 8
 
1.
 
The Silk Road Server Was Searched by Foreign Law Enforcement Authorities to Whom the Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply ................................. 9
 
2.
 
Even Assuming the Search of the Silk Road Server Was Subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Search Was Reasonable and Did Not Require a Warrant ............. 11
 
3.
 
Obtaining a Warrant under the Stored Communications Act to Search the Silk Road Server Was Neither Feasible Nor Required .................................................... 14
 
C.
 
There Was No Material Omission Concerning the Discovery of the Silk Road Server in Any Search Warrant Applications for Other Electronically Stored Information .............. 15
 
D.
 
The Pen Registers Used to Monitor Ulbricht’s Internet Activity Collected Purely
 Non-Content Data and Did Not Require a Warrant .......................................................... 18
 
E.
 
The Search Warrants for Electronically Stored Information Satisfied the Particularity Clause and Were Not Overbroad ....................................................................................... 21
 
1.
 
The Backup Server Warrants Were Not “General Warrants”
 ................................... 22
 
2.
 
The Laptop and Email/Facebook Warrants Were Not “General Warrants”
 .............. 26
 
F.
 
 None of Ulbricht’s Arguments Merit a Suppression Hearing
 ............................................ 33
 
POINT II: ULBRICHT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS SHOULD BE DENIED
 ........................ 34
 
POINT III: ULBRICHT’S REQUEST FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
SHOULD BE DENIED ................................................................................................................ 37
 
Case 1:14-cr-00068-KBF Document 56 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 58
 
 
POINT IV: ULBRICHT’S REQUESTS TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE
SHOULD BE DENIED ................................................................................................................ 43
 
A.
 
The Indictment’s Murde
r-for-
Hire Allegations Are Relevant to Ulbricht’s
Criminal State of Mind and Should Not Be Stricken ........................................................ 44
 
B.
 
The Indictment’s Reference to “Malicious Software” Is Re
levant to the Computer Hacking Charge and Should Not Be Stricken .................................................. 46
 
C.
 
The Indictment’s Use of Catchall Language Is Unobjectionable and Does Not
Impermissibly Expand the Scope of the Charges .............................................................. 47
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 49
 
Case 1:14-cr-00068-KBF Document 56 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 58

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->